List Contact Folders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List personal contact folders' and does not describe the return format, whether system folders are included, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. This is a minimal description with no additional behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with a single English sentence and a Chinese translation. The Chinese text repeats the meaning and may be useful for multilingual intent matching, but it is not essential. Overall, the description is front-loaded and wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), a basic description might suffice, but this one omits any indication of what the returned data looks like or how the response is structured. It also doesn't clarify the exact scope of 'personal contact folders' or if it excludes shared contacts. The description meets the minimum viable standard but lacks contextual richness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter 'top' is fully documented in the schema with a description ('Number of folders to return') and constraints (minimum 1, maximum 100), providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning to this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'personal contact folders', clearly distinguishing the tool from sibling tools like contacts_list_folder_contacts which lists contacts within a folder. The scope 'personal' disambiguates from shared or public folders.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that contacts_list_folder_contacts is for contacts within folders, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The tool's name partially implies its use case, but the description itself lacks usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.